Hi, I am new to diigital photography. I have one camera which I purchased 7 years ago and it is painfully slow in focus, so slow that I realized I was no longer taking photos of the kids. Prior to my digital camera I used a canon SLR. I would like to buy a new camera to use everyday with the kids and get back into photography. I have been looking at some of the smaller compacts which allow some manual control am I feel a little overloaded with info.My criteria is :- pocketable (jacket pocketable is fine)- Good image quality for "slide shows" and enlargement prints (not info social media- I don't even own a smart phone)- good video (the kids LOVE watching themselves)- manual options, as I will also use the camera for bush walking, and variable light conditions- not too expensive - I don't want to be too devasted if there is a dropping incident or drink bottle incident ( I have already lost 2 phones to the latter ! )

I have read several reviews and I am stuck between either a travel zoom or a small compact. I have a question regarding image quality. Many of the negative comments on the travel zooms and the cheaper compacts ( in Australia this is the canon s110, the Olympus xz10 ) are regarding image quality. At an enlargement of say a4 up to a3 would I be loosing too much in image quality ? I am not a pixel peeper (don't know how to be one yet ! ). I just haven't really experienced many digital cameras except super cheap point and shoot ones for work which I have not Ben happy with.

Moving on to the more subjective question -- probably more than you want to spend, but I think a Sony RX100 II fits your criteria better than anything else. It has a large 1", high resolution 20 MP, sensor and bright (f1.8 when zoomed out) Zeiss lens, like the original, in a similarly compact package. But it adds 24p video and tilt screen. Personally, I feel that anything less expensive will be sacrificing image and/or video quality and/or pocketability.

Hi Wondering if there is any thought on the comparison between the Panasonic GM1 vs the Sony RX100 II ? I waited for the Canon S120 before I finalised my choice and ended up reading Gordon's review of the GM1 as well. THere are some very good deals on the GM1 and the RX100 ii (1 which has the GM1 only $70AUD dearer than the cheapest offer for the Sony). So this has put a spanner in the works as I now have to work out whether having a ILC which is slightly bigger would be better than the sony.

I really want a camera which I can just tag around with me all the time and catch moments so I would appreciate any input as I am a complete novice in this area.

Don't forget to factor in the cost and size of the lens with the GM1. i.e. to get a similarly bright aperture, you'd probably be looking at either the Olympus 17mm f1.8 or Panasonic 20mm f1.7 lens, either of which (if bought separately) will add several hundred dollars to the cost of the total package.* Also, neither of these lenses retracts into the body of the camera like the lens on the RX100 does when powered off, so both will result in a larger (thicker, from front to back) package to carry around, unless you carry the lens and camera body separately, which is what I do.

Full disclosure: I own both of the lenses mentioned - Mark

*Also, since both are prime lenses, you will have to "zoom with your feet" as they say. But to be fair, the lens on the RX100 slows down as you zoom, so IMO this aspect is kind of a wash. YMMV. Also note that the fields of view of both m4/3 primes (35mm and 40mm respectively) are a bit longer/tighter than the RX100 when it is zoomed all the way out (28mm). Panasonic does make a 14mm (28mm full frame equiv.) prime, but it has a slower max aperture of f2.5

Last edited by Maestro on Thu Jan 23, 2014 8:22 am, edited 1 time in total.

the Canon S120 is the smaller and cheaper than the other two you mentioned. Since you want something pocketable that you can carry around all the time, its hard to beat. I got the older S95 and it lives in my wife`s handbag, its a great little camera.

The other one to look at is the Lumix LF1 with its bigger zoom, but about the same size as the S120.

Personally I would lean towards the S120 or LF1, rather than the Sony RX100 or the GM1, they have hit a sweet spot, ie dollars vs image quality vs size.To really pursuit image quality consider the mirror less stuff or a DSLR, but there is no rush they will release better stuff all the time and its getting smaller and lighter and better value.

Is the Rx100ii quality really worth the extra $300 compared to the canons120 ? Not that I'm not impressed, just trying to work out whether I should go for the extra quality for longer or go cheaper with a view to upgrading sooner. As I said I'm not that into social media , mostly oictures.

Is the Rx100ii quality really worth the extra $300 compared to the canons120 ?

Not sure this is something anyone else can answer for you since it depends on your particular financial situation. However, two (conflicting) points you may want to consider:

1) as digital electronic devices, Moore's Law applies. So in a nutshell, you should plan for a new "generation" with superior capabilities to supplant the current one every two years or so. And that would lean toward upgrading sooner than later.

2) instead of upgrading to replace your current camera, you could buy something new to supplement/complement it. And this would lean toward buying the best you can afford now so that it will remain useful for as long as possible. i.e. buy the RX100 now, and in a couple of years, buy a larger (m4/3) camera for those occasions where the RX100 doesn't work for you. (But still keep the RX100 as a "handy to have with you all the time" option.)

The latter is what I do. Your mileage (and financial situation) may vary - Mark

I agree with Maestro to some extent, buy the best you can afford, but find that there is room in every ones kit for a really small easy to carry around camera. The little S120 ticks the box and it will still be a good little camera in 5 years, for just that purpose. I think its hit a sweet spot of quality, size and price.

With the Sony RX100 there will be something cheaper, better in 6 month from any of two or three other manufacturers. I would wait , save the $300 and then build a better system in a year or two if and when funds become available. The manufacturers are falling over themselves bringing out new stuff and new lenses. The whole mirror less stuff is still only in its infancy. It may mean spending 3 or 4 times more and lenses.Even if you don`t want to buy a body and various lenses and stick to compact little cameras there will be others that will all be better, faster , have bigger sensors and better image quality in a year or two. Its a fairly new area that hasn`t matured yet, therefore I don`t see the price vs quality as appealing.

If you got the cash now, yes then go for it, but for me the Sony is part way there, but not jumped ahead of the S120 sufficiently and the S120 has got a wider wide angle and longer zoom. The longer zoom wouldn`t worry me so much , its nice to have, but for me the difference between 24 and 28 at the wide angle is a big deal. I wouldn`t be surprised if Sony bring out an upgrade later in the year of the RX100 II with a wider lens, a slightly longer zoom and a touch screen.

Anyway, I don`t think you will have regrets whichever camera you choose. I am still perfectly happy using my 3+ year old S95 and 7D .